Russia Commemorates Kulikovo Field Victory

[Nestor]

Originally Posted by Ross

There is Western Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine. The Dnieper river is the border.

I know we have the Right Bank and Left bank Ukraine are diveded by the river Dnipro, but I always thought that the border between Eastern and Western Ukraine was the river Zbruch.

[Austrvegr]

KULIKOVO FIELD CYCLE BY ILYA GLAZUNOV

King Dmitry



Queen Eudokia



Warriors Leaving



On the Eve



Mamay



Single Combat

[Nestor]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

From the Encyclopedia Britannica
Battle of Kulikovo


(Sept. 8, 1380), military engagement in which the Russians defeated the forces of the Golden Horde, thereby demonstrating the developing independence of the Russian lands from Mongol rule (which had been imposed in 1240). The battle occurred when Mamai, a Mongol general who effectively ruled the western portion of the Golden Horde, invaded the Russian lands. The Russians, whose…

[source]

Not the best write up. Russia didn't exist yet. It is analagous to saying that England was conquered by the Italians.

Better to write
(Sept. 8, 1380), military engagement in which the Mosocovites defeated the forces of the Golden Horde, thereby demonstrating the developing independence of the Rus' lands from Mongol rule (which had been imposed in 1240). The battle occurred when Mamai, a Mongol general who effectively ruled the western portion of the Golden Horde, invaded the Rus' lands. The Moscovites, whose…

But there lies one of the problems. This encylopedia is relying directly on Russian Imperialist sources.

Another analogy is calling Great Britain England. Some people don't know the difference but for others it is not the same.

[Nestor]

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

KULIKOVO FIELD CYCLE BY ILYA GLAZUNOV

King Dmitry

Why King?

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

Queen Eudokia

Why Queen?




[/quote]

[Austrvegr]

Originally Posted by Nestor

Not the best write up. Russia didn't exist yet. It is analagous to saying that England was conquered by the Italians.

Better to write
(Sept. 8, 1380), military engagement in which the Mosocovites defeated the forces of the Golden Horde, thereby demonstrating the developing independence of the Rus' lands from Mongol rule (which had been imposed in 1240). The battle occurred when Mamai, a Mongol general who effectively ruled the western portion of the Golden Horde, invaded the Rus' lands. The Moscovites, whose…

But there lies one of the problems. This encylopedia is relying directly on Russian Imperialist sources.

Another analogy is calling Great Britain England. Some people don't know the difference but for others it is not the same.

Along with Muscovites, armies from a dozen of other Russian kingdoms took part in the battle. It was understood both by contemporaries and later generations as a common victory of the entire Russia. It's analogous to saying that England defeated Northmen at Stamford Bridge, and as correct.

[Austrvegr]

Originally Posted by Nestor

Why King?

Why Queen?

Because Russian knyaz' < Proto-Germanic kuningaz > English king, German Koenig, etc. Before the 16th century, Russians called Western sovereigns knyazya, and Westerners called Russian sovereigns Koenige, reges, etc. The loaning of the West Slavonic word korol' by Russians in the 16th century resulted in a mess, which it's now time to clean up.

[Nestor]

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

Because Russian knyaz' < Proto-Germanic kuningaz > English king, German Koenig, etc. Before the 16th century, Russians called Western sovereigns knyazya, and Westerners called Russian sovereigns Koenige, reges, etc. The loaning of the West Slavonic word korol' by Russians in the 16th century resulted in a mess, which it's now time to clean up.

To me this does make sense. The word knyaz' does contain Kng so to me this seems logical to translate the word into King.

However, why did they translate the word as Prince or Duke or Grand Prince or Arch Duke and what do you suggest we do with these terms.

Then there is the matter of Kniaz' Danylo and Kniaz' Lev who were crowned and became koroli - probably from the word coronate. What do you suggest for these terms?

[Austrvegr]

Originally Posted by Nestor

To me this does make sense. The word knyaz' does contain Kng so to me this seems logical to translate the word into King.

However, why did they translate the word as Prince or Duke or Grand Prince or Arch Duke and what do you suggest we do with these terms.

Then there is the matter of Kniaz' Danylo and Kniaz' Lev who were crowned and became koroli - probably from the word coronate. What do you suggest for these terms?

West Slavs concocted the word korol' and put it a step above their original title knyaz'. However, for Russians such a problem does not exist. Russians never applied the term korol' to their sovereigns. In Russian, korol' is just a country-specific term for a foreign sovereign, like khan, sultan, shah, etc. And what you do in Ukrainian, it's up to you to decide.

[Nestor]

A lesson to Russian history buffs
From: emenkay4u <persuit41@yahoo.com> Interesting article I came across today re the Kulikovo battle.


The lesson is -- not to assume all claims to be Gospel Truth, especially those dealing with "origins" of Russia. To this day, Ukraine historians are remiss in trying to convince the rest of the world that UKRAINE IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH RUSSIA. Even Leonid Kuchma's book on that subject failed to make a dent in that fallacious connotation.

Leaving that aside -- the latest brouhaha brewing inside Russia [Nezavisimaya Gazeta et al] over the facts dealing with the celebrated Kulikovo Battle is the focus of this discussion. The 625 Year Anniversary Celebration, of the Kulikovo event this last September 21, was accompanied by a flurry of new facts revelations, shaking the symbolic battle significance to the core.

To those unfamiliar with the original story -- a brief synopsis follows. The victory at the Kulikovo Battle, of the year 1380, is associated with the birth of "new" Russia, transforming the Muscovy Principality -- harassed by the Golden Horde -- into a Russia state, uniting all northern principalities into one nation. All this is founded on the belief that a victorious Russian Prince defeated the pesky Tatar-Mongol Khan, thus, in one big swoop ending the Golden Horde era of intimidation and establishing Russian Orthodoxy supremacy over Islam.

The very catchy and proud moment in Russia history, however, is now found to be ruined by a huge flaw -- the principal characters on both sides of the Kulikovo Battle turn out to have been vassals of the same Khan, called Tukhtamish. The celebrated prince Dimitri Donskiy merely defeated the rebellious vassal, called Mamay, as a trusting vassal stepping in defense of Khan Tukhtamish. If that is not an ambarrassing and deflating revelation to the likes of president Putin and the Moscow Patriarch, Aleksy II -- then what is?

Needless to say -- this years Kulikovovo Battle Anniversary celebrations were muted by the big shadow of doubt hanging over the event validity.

[Ross]

Keep posting BS, vuiko?

[Menydh]

Nestor, I have news for you. Behind virtually every historical account from any country, there is always something of legend.

[Ross]

Mynydd, the legend is what Nestor is saying.

Vassals of Tokhtamysh? LOL Just find out where that Tokhtamysh was hiding at the moment...

[Austrvegr]

Originally Posted by Nestor

A lesson to Russian history buffs
From: emenkay4u <persuit41@yahoo.com> Interesting article I came across today re the Kulikovo battle.


The lesson is -- not to assume all claims to be Gospel Truth, especially those dealing with "origins" of Russia. To this day, Ukraine historians are remiss in trying to convince the rest of the world that UKRAINE IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH RUSSIA. Even Leonid Kuchma's book on that subject failed to make a dent in that fallacious connotation.

Leaving that aside -- the latest brouhaha brewing inside Russia [Nezavisimaya Gazeta et al] over the facts dealing with the celebrated Kulikovo Battle is the focus of this discussion. The 625 Year Anniversary Celebration, of the Kulikovo event this last September 21, was accompanied by a flurry of new facts revelations, shaking the symbolic battle significance to the core.

To those unfamiliar with the original story -- a brief synopsis follows. The victory at the Kulikovo Battle, of the year 1380, is associated with the birth of "new" Russia, transforming the Muscovy Principality -- harassed by the Golden Horde -- into a Russia state, uniting all northern principalities into one nation. All this is founded on the belief that a victorious Russian Prince defeated the pesky Tatar-Mongol Khan, thus, in one big swoop ending the Golden Horde era of intimidation and establishing Russian Orthodoxy supremacy over Islam.

The very catchy and proud moment in Russia history, however, is now found to be ruined by a huge flaw -- the principal characters on both sides of the Kulikovo Battle turn out to have been vassals of the same Khan, called Tukhtamish. The celebrated prince Dimitri Donskiy merely defeated the rebellious vassal, called Mamay, as a trusting vassal stepping in defense of Khan Tukhtamish. If that is not an ambarrassing and deflating revelation to the likes of president Putin and the Moscow Patriarch, Aleksy II -- then what is?

Needless to say -- this years Kulikovovo Battle Anniversary celebrations were muted by the big shadow of doubt hanging over the event validity.

The big shadow of doubt may hang in the minds of Jewish journalists of the Jewish newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta or their Ukrainian admirers. People who are interested in the truth should merely look up Russian accounts of the battle, written immediately thereafter or later, like the Zadonshchina, chronicles, etc. They will find no word of Russian vassals fighting on behalf of their Tatar overlords. Instead, they will find celebration of the victory of Russians over Tatars and joy about Russia being saved from the Tatar invasion. This is how contemporaries perceived the Kulikovo Field battle and how all Russians have perceived it up to this day. And no Jewish-Ukrainian efforts will be able to change this perception.

[Nestor]

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

People who are interested in the truth should merely look up Russian accounts of the battle, written immediately thereafter or later, like the Zadonshchina, chronicles, etc. They will find no word of Russian vassals fighting on behalf of their Tatar overlords. Instead, they will find celebration of the victory of Russians over Tatars and joy about Russia being saved from the Tatar invasion. This is how contemporaries perceived the Kulikovo Field battle and how all Russians have perceived it up to this day. And no Jewish-Ukrainian efforts will be able to change this perception.

The problem is that the Russian accounts that you quote are tendencial. In most of the chronicles there are no mentions of this battle at all and there is nothing written about the celebration of the victory of the Moscovites over the Tatars, and in fact Moscovy was not saved from Tatar invasion.
I agree that your perceptions will not be changed no matter what information is produced and I there is no Jewish-Ukrainian effort to change this perception.

If you want to change the perception produce information based on fact.

[Austrvegr]

Originally Posted by Nestor

The problem is that the Russian accounts that you quote are tendencial.

All accounts are tendentious.

Originally Posted by Nestor

In most of the chronicles there are no mentions of this battle at all and there is nothing written about the celebration of the victory of the Moscovites over the Tatars,

This battle is mentioned in all Russian chronicles, and all of them celebrate the Russian victory over the Tatars.

Originally Posted by Nestor

and in fact Moscovy was not saved from Tatar invasion.

Yes, it was. Tatars fled, Mamay was killed.

Originally Posted by Nestor

I agree that your perceptions will not be changed no matter what information is produced and I there is no Jewish-Ukrainian effort to change this perception.

If you want to change the perception produce information based on fact.

That's exactly what you cannot do.

[Menydh]

I can't speak for the details of the Battle of Kulikovo Field, but to refute Nestor's agenda I can compare it to what is considered as the cornerstone of the Reconquista of the Spains, the Battle of Covadonga.

Covadonga has usually been depicted it as a battle against Islam which marked the start of the Reconquista. This is not entirely truth, though it is not false either.

Anyone visiting the sanctuary of Covadonga will realize that no proper battle could have ever taken place there. At least not an open field battle. The steeped mountain and narrow passes would have not allowed for such luxury. Most likely there was a bruise between fleeing Christians who had taken refuge in the Cantabrian mountains and the locals, against an advanced party of Muslims.. not even an army.

However the sources are few and confusing, like the Crónica Mozárabe written at a later time by Christians of Toledo who were already living under the yoke of Islam. It is much possible that such chronicle was written with a propaganda aim, to encourage more Christians in Toledo to flee North and join a resistance.

Other chronicles were written at an even later time, like the Chronica Adefonsis, written during the reign of King Alfonso III, and of which there exist two versions. One of the versions appears to have a political tendency aimed to create an ideology of "Reconquista", an idea not mentioned before the reign of Alfonso III.

There are many more obscure and insteresting details around Covadonga and the early manuscripts, but what is interesting here is to notice that the said "battle" most surely had no important incidence over the Muslims, who would not bother much more with an area which was highly hostile and of little interest.

Yet, this doesn't decrease the importance of Covadonga as an ideological cornerstone for the Reconquista, which from those early times involved the Christians fighting day and night, day after day, month after month, and for centuries to come. Equally important --if not more-- as the great battles and conquests were the so-called cabalgadas (horse-riding raids) and constant frontier fights. And it is there too where Covadonga was important as the ideological foundation of it all. Even when there was resistance on other spots of Hispania.

So yes, there is legend in Covadonga, but that is precisely because there was a reality too. Legends are not myths, and are much closer to reality than they are to myths.

Now, the modern liberal mind is to strip those legends of their most important and bigger part from where they exist, which is the reality, and present them as myths.

[Llywarch Hen]

Originally Posted by Austrvegr

Because Russian knyaz' < Proto-Germanic kuningaz > English king, German Koenig, etc. Before the 16th century, Russians called Western sovereigns knyazya, and Westerners called Russian sovereigns Koenige, reges, etc. The loaning of the West Slavonic word korol' by Russians in the 16th century resulted in a mess, which it's now time to clean up.

Well done Austrvegr! I often translate from Russian, and I feel terribly disrespectful when I refer to these old dead heroic Knyazes as 'dukes'. It's convention, but these can be changed. I mean, for God's sake, victorious generals in England were often made into dukes, and we're talking about full-blooded Ryurikoviches! I would even go so far as to say I hate writing 'Grand Duke'!